Commons:Candidatas a imágenes de calidad

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 77% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Saltar a nominaciones
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska
float

Éstas son las candidatas a convertirse en Imagen de Calidad. or favor, que quede claro que no es lo mismo que Imágenes destacadas. Adicionalmente, en caso de que desees información sobre tus imágenes, puedes conseguirla en Críticas fotográficas.

Objetivo

El objetivo de las imágenes de calidad es alentar a la gente que son la base de Commons, los usuarios individuales que proporcionan las imágenes para expandir esta colección. Mientras que las imágenes destacadas identifican a las mejores de todas las imágenes subidas a Commons, las Imágenes de Calidad sirven para identificar y alentar los esfuerzos de los usuarios para subir imágenes de calidad a Commons.
Además, las imágenes de calidad podrían ser un lugar donde otros usuarios expliquen métodos para mejorar una imagen.

Directrices

Todas las imágenes nominadas deben ser el resultado del trabajo de los usuarios de Commons.

Para los nominadores

A continuación se incluyen las directrices generales para Imágenes de Calidad, y un criterio más detallado está disponible en Directrices de imágenes.

Requisitos de las imágenes
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the Image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Requisitos técnicos

Criterios más detallados están disponibles en Directrices de imágenes.

Resolución

Las imágenes de Commons no sólo se pueden usar para verlas en la pantalla. También pueden usarse para la impresión y o para su visualización en monitores de alta resolución. No podemos predecir qué dispositivos se usarán en el futuro, por lo que es importante que las imágenes que sean nominadas tengan una resolución razonablemente alta. Normalmente el límite inferior son 2 megapíxeles, pero para imágenes 'fáciles de tomar', los revisores pueden exigir mucho más.

(No aplicable a las imágenes SVG)

Calidad de las Imágenes

Las imágenes digitales pueden sufrir diversos problemas originados en la captura y procesamiento de la imagen como ruido, problemas con la compresión JPEG, falta de información, zonas de sombra o de relieve, o problemas con la captura de colores. Todos estos temas deben ser manejados correctamente.

Composición e iluminación

El arreglo del sujeto principal de una imagen debe contribuir a la propia imagen. Los objetos de fondo no deben distraer. La iluminación y el foco también han de contribuir al resultado global; el sujeto ha de destacar, ser completo y estar bien expuesto.

Valor

Nuestro objetivo principal es favorecer la calidad de las imágenes que contribuyen a Wikicommons, algo valioso para los proyectos de Wikimedia.

Cómo nominar

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Nota: Hay un artilugio que acelera las nominaciones. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the Image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations

Carefully select your best images to nominate. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline.

Evaluación de las imágenes

Cualquier usuario registrado puede revisar una nominación.
Cuando un revisor evalúa una imagen debe considerar las mismas directrices que el nominador.

Cómo revisar

How to update the status

Examina cuidadosamente la imagen. Ábrela en la máxima resolución, y mira si se cumplen los criterios de calidad.

  • Si decides promover la nominación, cambia la línea relevante de
Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination| muy breve descripción --~~~~ |}}

to

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion| muy breve descripción --Firma del nominador | Por qué te gusta. --~~~~}}

En otras palabras, cambia la plantilla de /Nomination a /Promotion y añade tu firma, a ser posible con algún pequeño comentario.

  • Si decides declinar la nominación, cambia la línea relevante de
Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination| muy breve descripción --~~~~ |}}

to

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline| muy breve descripción --Firma del nominador | Por qué no te gusta. --~~~~}}

En otras palabras, cambia la plantilla de /Nomination a /Decline y añade tu firma, a ser posible declarando los criterios por los que la imagen falló (puedes usar títulos de la sección de las directrices). Si hay muchos problemas, por favor notifica sólo los 2 o 3 más severos, y añade multiple problems. Cuando declines una nominación, por favor explica las razones en la página de discusión del nominador - como regla general, debes ser agradable y alentador! En el mensaje deberías dar una explicación más detallada de tu decisión.

Nota: Por favor, evalúa primero las imágenes más antiguas.

Período de gracia y promoción

Si no hay objeciones en un período de 2 días (exactamente: 48 horas) desde su revisión, la imagen se promueve o no, de acuerdo con la revisión que recibió. Si tienes objeciones, mueve la imagen al estado Consensual review.

Cómo ejecutar una decisión

QICbot actúa automáticamente estos 2 días después de que la decisión se ha tomado, y las imágenes promovidas son guardadas en Promovidas recientemente a la espera de la inserción manual en una apropiada página de Imágenes de Calidad.

Si crees que has encontrado una imagen excepcional que merece el estatus de Imagen destacada, entonces nomínala también en Commons:Featured picture candidates

  • Las imágenes que esperan una revisión, se muestran en un recuadro azul.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro verde.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro rojo.

Imágenes no asignadas (recuadro azul)

Las imágenes nominadas que no han sido promovidas ni declinadas, o acabaron en consenso (hubo igual número de oposiciones y apoyos) tras 8 días en esta página deberían ser borradas de esta página sin promoción, archivadas en Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives marzo 2015 y añadirle a la imagen la Category:Unassessed QI candidates.

Proceso de revisión de consenso

La revisión de consenso es un lugar utilizado en el caso en que el procedimiento descrito anteriormente sea insuficiente y necesite discusión para que surjan más opiniones.

Cómo preguntar por la revisión de consenso

Si esto parece demasiado complicado, sólo cambia /Promotion, /Decline a /Discuss y añade tus comentarios inmediatamente tras la revisión. Alguien la moverá a la sección de revisión de consenso. O sólo intentalo, acertarás si sigues cuidadosamente lo que todo el mundo hace.

Por favor, sólo envía cosas a la revisión de consenso que hayan sido revisadas como promovidas / declinadas. Si, como revisor, no puedes tomar una decisión, añade tus comentarios, pero deja el candidato en esta página.

Revisión de las reglas de consenso

Ver Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Actualización de la página: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 07:22, 3 marzo 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

March 3, 2015

March 2, 2015

March 1, 2015

February 28, 2015

February 27, 2015

February 26, 2015

February 25, 2015

February 24, 2015

February 23, 2015

February 22, 2015

February 21, 2015

February 20, 2015

February 18, 2015

February 16, 2015

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review

File:Poertschach Werzer-Bad 01032015 0220.jpg

Poertschach Werzer-Bad 01032015 0220.jpg

  • Nomination Werzer bath establishment, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 17:38, 01 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 20:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    Not so fast. There is a problem with a magenta CA on the left (see the note). Please first fix that, before the promotion. --Halavar 21:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done Thank you for your review. Reworked version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 02:36, 02 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now. --Halavar 23:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Window_and_grate_Courtyard_of_the_Doges_Palace_Venice.jpg

Window and grate Courtyard of the Doges Palace Venice.jpg

  • Nomination Window and iron grate in the Doge's Palace courtyard in Venice --Moroder 10:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 11:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment After additional review, third opinion appreciated. It is not sharp enough. --Hubertl 06:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed, not sharp enough, even taking the high resolution into account. --Kreuzschnabel 09:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Telšiai Cathedral Exterior, Telšiai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

Telšiai Cathedral Exterior, Telšiai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

  • Nomination Telšiai Cathedral in Telšiai, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 11:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very good detail as usual but the distortion from straightening the verticals is a bit too much for me. Some posterization in the clouds right of the tower. Let’s hear some more opinions. --Kreuzschnabel 09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:ČSD Class (IMG 8750).JPG

ČSD Class (IMG 8750).JPG

  • Nomination A ČSD Class 451 (ČSD Class 451 045/046) departs from Zábřeh na Moravě station (Czech Republic). --Daniel Holý CZ 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI -- Spurzem 15:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question Maybe I am making a fool of myself but is this a Wikimedian’s work? --Kreuzschnabel 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    I am also in doubts. For me, it looks that the nominating user Daniel Holý CZ is uploading the work of some people with OTRS. However, this is not entitling the photos to participate in QIC. If this turns out to be the case, then there are some QI that have to be delisted. Example: The photo's author is Karel Furiš, but this [2] photos author is Viktor Zerzán. --Cccefalon 08:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Tagus in Toledo002.jpg

Tagus in Toledo002.jpg

  • Nomination Tagus River in Toledo.--لا روسا 00:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Shadow parts need brightening. Maybe you can sharpen it a bit too. --Hockei 18:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Hard to say. The dark parts are better now. But I'm not quite convinced about the sharpness. I think you have used unsharp masking or sharpening only edges too strong. With this picture I cannot make it better. Sorry --Hockei 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Hockei: review it now.--لا روسا 11:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    I really don't know. Maybe other people can review it. --Hockei 12:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No fine detail, very unsharp for a 3 Mpix image IMHO. --C messier 16:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:The Temple of Hercules010.JPG

The Temple of Hercules010.JPG

  • Nomination The Temple of Hercules, Amman.--لا روسا 12:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 12:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    IMHO, it needs perspective correction. --C messier 15:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @C messier: review it now.--لا روسا 11:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Why needs it perspective correction? I know many images which are distorted by these modern duing and this here would not look better with absolutely vertical lines. -- Spurzem 20:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Spurzem: So i have to revert the original one.--لا روسا 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done. The top of the columns is leaning in. It's not difficult, but you need a special software, like the freely available GIMP. According to Image guidelines "Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear. Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant". In this case the camera isn't angled enough for the perspective not to be corrected (for a purpose) nor the disturtion is insignificant (it is noticable in the thumbnail). I gave it a try and it looked really nice. --C messier 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@لا روسا: I have to apologize. For now it is indeed too distorted. -- Spurzem 14:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What side is the right one? Is it wrong way now or before? -- Spurzem 15:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have taken 2 photos from its two sides, one is this from the back (original one without any perspective) and the other is that from the front.--لا روسا 20:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Kościół_św._Antoniego_w_Gołogłowach,_01.JPG

2014 Kościół św. Antoniego w Gołogłowach, 01.JPG

  • Nomination Church of St. Anthony in Gołogłowy 1 --Jacek Halicki 10:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Top left looks overexposed, but IMO OK. But: It's too noisy. --XRay 12:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree, I denoised picture --Jacek Halicki 15:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for denoising. It's better now, noise is still there, but acceptable.--XRay 06:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support QI Good quality the electric cable is not too disturbing --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 12:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as others.--Hubertl 12:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jerash Oval Plaza 003.JPG

Jerash Oval Plaza 003.JPG

  • Nomination Jerash Oval Plaza.--لا روسا 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion JPEG artifacts in the sky. --MB-one 17:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC).
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, it was an autocorrect and not be artifact or unreal image. You can see the original one, if you want to replace it again.--لا روسا 11:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@MB-one: review it now.--لا روسا 21:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Van_Hool_A308_M3021_Demi-Lieue_STAR_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

Van Hool A308 M3021 Demi-Lieue STAR - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Bus in Roanne --Billy69150 07:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support You didn't lose your subject this time (although once again, simplifying these with tighter crops will help) --Daniel Case 06:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Seems to have a fair amount of perspective distortion, and brightness isn't great. --Mattbuck 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I don't specially like the photo but I see no apparent issues. Kvardek du 18:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Hamamelis x intermedia 'Angelly'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei.jpg

Hamamelis x intermedia 'Angelly'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei.jpg

  • Nomination Hamamelis x intermedia 'Angelly' (witch hazel). A nice selection of † Jan Van Heijningen.
    Famberhorst 16:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do you have a different version, I miss sharpness! --Hubertl 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    *Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination.Unfortunately, I have only one photo.--Famberhorst 16:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Good quality. --XRay 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    If we're ignoring the withdrawal, then I'll have to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose here as it's out of focus. -- KTC 22:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, something wrong. --XRay 04:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment May be, the quality is acceptable, but I don't want to contradict the withdrawel. Sorry. I've not seen the withdrawel. Sometimes it's not easy to review an images caused by edit conflicts or similar effects. So I removed my first review. --XRay 06:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Poma_2000_Hôtel_de_Ville_-_Florian_FEVRE.jpg

Poma 2000 Hôtel de Ville - Florian FEVRE.jpg

  • Nomination Poma in Laon --Billy69150 08:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Below minimum size requirement. --Hubertl 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Billy69150 15:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment there are some Problems (CA, Fringe, perspective distortions), third opinion appreciated, see annotations.--Hubertl 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, mainly because of the composition. It is not clear what the (main) subject of this image is. I'd guess it's the train station and the people mover? In that case, there are way too much other things included in the image that distract from the subject. Too much sky. It's generally not a good idea to put the horizon at the vertical center of the frame (unless you have a very good reason to do so). Is the (half) house on the right edge of the frame really necessary? Fortunately, all this might be fixable with a careful, tighter crop. --El Grafo (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - CA, low JPEG quality. Mattbuck 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Lisboa January 2015-46a.jpg

Lisboa January 2015-46a.jpg

  • Nomination Monument to the Portuguese discoveries (silhouette), Lisboa, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 12:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand why you nominate the picture again. Nothing changed since last time. The picture may be nice from an artistic point of view but the light situation is still not sufficient for QI. Are you hoping for different reviewers this time? --Code 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I'm hoping for a wiser attitude from the old ones. Alvesgaspar 16:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So you think that we were just not wise enough to review your picture properly? Don't you think that this is a quite disrespectful attitude? --Code 08:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. Everybody makes mistakes and correcting them adds to the respect the others have on us. Alvesgaspar 12:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To say that declining your nomination was a mistake doesn't make me respect you more. I would respect you if you could accept that not every picture you nominate has to be a QI in the eyes of others. It probably doesn't bother you but it makes me very sad what you're doing here. --Code 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. as the unvailing nomination a few days ago. --Hubertl 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why and nobody seems to be able to explain. Thus sent to CR (again), Alvesgaspar 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reason as last time. Nothing changed. Re-nominating after a decline without changing anything is disrespectful in my eyes (and probably against the rules). --Code 07:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Let me quote the reason of last time: Sorry, bad light situation. Monument is too dark. Yes, it is too dark, as in most contre-jour photographs, many of them QI or FP. In some cases, including the present one, contrast is enhanced in order to obtain the desired effect (see original here) For me to respect a technical review it ought to be intelectually respectable, which is obviously not the case here. Alvesgaspar 08:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The description says "Monumento to the Portuguese Discoveries (Padrão dos Descobrimentos), Lisboa, Portugal.". Unfortunately I don't see any monument on this picture. I see blue areas and black areas. That's it. And I don't see which value the picture should have regarding the project scope. As I already said this picture may be nice from an artistic point of view. But that's not what we ask for in QI. Additionally I somehow don't really understand the last sentence of your last comment, but I hope you didn't want to call me stupid. --Code 09:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You certainly do not represent the community when you state but that's not what we ask for in QI (bold added), especially knowing that there are several - probably hundreds of - silhouette and contre-jour quality images in Commons (please see here and here). As for not seing which value the picture should have regarding the project scope, that is certainly a limitation of your own eyes, probably based on a short-sighted idea of what the project scope really is. Alvesgaspar 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • First: I never said that I represented the community. Second: None of these pictures contains as little information as the one we're talking about in this case. Third: The fact that other (different) pictures were promoted doesn't give you any entitlement to have this one promoted, too. For me, this discussion is over at this point. This is getting too personal. I want no quarrel with you and I like most of your pictures. Let's see what the others think about your nomination. --Code 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a normal picture, obviously this wouldn't be QI as the subject is too dark. As a silhouette as intended, this doesn't work for me either. It's kinda stuck in between being a silhouette and an under-exposed picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 February 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - As before, I think this is QI, the composition is clearly intentional. However I do think that renominating it so soon is bad form. Mattbuck 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Milseburg 12:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:St Casimir Church Exterior At Dusk, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

St Casimir Church Exterior At Dusk, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

  • Nomination Saint Casimir Church in Vilnius, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 13:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The ghosts behind the red car don't disturb me, but a little bit denoising of the sky would be fine. --Code 08:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support seems ok to me. Mattbuck 22:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question @Mattbuck: Why do you think that the usual habits do not apply here? --Code 13:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I interpreted your comment as a suggestion of improvement, not of "this is not yet QI". Mattbuck 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not opposing any longer. Doesn't seem as if anybody was interested in improving the quality of this picture. --Code 07:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK to me. --Johann Jaritz 03:59, 03 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst. (Alnus). Elzentak met katjes boven bevroren poel 02.jpg

Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst. (Alnus). Elzentak met katjes boven bevroren poel 02.jpg

  • Nomination Location: The Natuurterrein Famberhorst. (Alnus). Elzentak with kittens above frozen lake.
    Famberhorst 05:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but it is too noisy for me and somehow unclear. --Hockei 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Hockei --MB-one 17:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_01.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 01.jpg

✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo --Dirtsc 11:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Übertriebene Korrektur der Perspektive. -- Spurzem 13:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Halavar 18:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_02.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 02.jpg

  • Nomination Lookout tower on Borówkowa 2 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 19:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo --Dirtsc 11:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Schade, aber das Dach wirkt hier wie bei den folgenden Bildern unnatürlich oder unwirklich. -- Spurzem 13:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_03.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 03.jpg

  • Nomination Lookout tower on Borówkowa 3 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree --Hubertl 16:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I do agree. This image has a high EV though to show when perspective correction is unsuitable. Vielleicht haben wir unterschiedliche Sehgewohnheiten, aber mein Auge sagt mir hier eindeutig, daß das Dach in einem Winkel von mindestens 30 Grad nach hinten gekippt ist, erst meine Vernunft sagt, daß das wohl kaum der Fall ist, worauf mein Auge mit „sieht man doch“ dagegenhält. So entsteht kein harmonischer Bildeindruck. Das liegt daran, daß man zwar die perspektivische Verjüngung korrigieren kann, aber nicht die Perspektive selbst: Von diesem Standpunkt wird die Kamera das Dach immer von unten sehen, was bei geraden Seitenwänden nur möglich ist, indem das Dach nach hinten kippt. --Kreuzschnabel 06:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I totally agree with Kreuzschnabel. Endlich mal einer der das klar ausspricht. Danke! --Dirtsc 08:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As El Grafo, --Dirtsc 08:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Hier sieht man, dass wir es mit der Forderung nach „perspective correction“ nicht übertreiben sollten. Dieser Tage war hier ein Bild mit völlig verzerrtem Kronleuchter zu sehen, aber die Säulen links und rechts standen absolut gerade. -- Spurzem 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_04.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 04.jpg

  • Nomination Lookout tower on Borówkowa 4 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 18:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 12:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος 13:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bitte nichts für ungut. Aber die übertriebene Korrektur der Perspektive zerstört den Eindruck der Wirklichkeit. -- Spurzem 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo and Spurzem --Dirtsc 11:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_05.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 05.jpg

  • Nomination Lookout tower on Borówkowa 5 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed --Jacek Halicki 18:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sei mir bitte nicht böse. Aber lässt sich der Turm nicht aus größerer Entfernung mit längerer Brennweite fotografieren? Auf jedem der drei Bilder wirkt er absolut unnatürlich. -- Spurzem 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo and Spurzem--Dirtsc 11:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Nysa,_kościół_św._Jakuba_Starszego_062.JPG

2014 Nysa, kościół św. Jakuba Starszego 062.JPG

  • Nomination Saints James and Agnes Basilica in Nysa 1 --Jacek Halicki 09:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The stained glass window is unsharp,.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Not done --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Heuliez_GX_427_Hybride_n°200_Réseau_Mistral_Liberté_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

Heuliez GX 427 Hybride n°200 Réseau Mistral Liberté - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Bus in Toulon --Billy69150 12:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion No real issues; could be improved with tighter cropping, though --Daniel Case 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Overexposure in the baclground, and too loose a crop on the left - I find my eye gets drawn left away from the subject. --Mattbuck 21:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good lighting, good composition and good sharpness. Therefore QI for me. -- Spurzem 21:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Klinikum_Bayreuth_November_21014.JPG

Klinikum Bayreuth November 21014.JPG

  • Nomination Bayreuth Medical Center, west facade --J. Lunau 11:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Commentsky overexposed--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done thank you for your review J. Lunau 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support perhaps too blueish, but It's better; . --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's vignetting, and I'm not really convinced from the level of detail.--C messier 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Funny, I took almost the same picture two months earlier ;-) The sky looks better now, but the change made the vignetting much more prominent (could probably be fixed easily in Rawtherapee with the right lens profile – I can check if I have one lying around on my HD) and everything that is not sky seems too dark. Also, there has been a loss of detail - looks like it may be due to a combination of sharpening and de-noising? --El Grafo (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Hello El Grafo, thanks for your review. As notice in upload comments, i only did exposure correction and USM, no de-noising. I noticed the funny coincidence while I set the category for this photo. My shot was done by intent at sunset, which gives the special colors but of course leads also to loss of details. I never tried working with lens profiles in Rawtherapee, so this is my opportunity to learn. If it works, I will upload a better version.--J. Lunau 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      Hi J. Lunau, then maybe it was the USM alone – if you compare the two versions, the later one has some strange artifacts (you'll have to zoom in to 100% and then have a look at some details like the windsock, the car at the left or the street lamps around it). I've found a correction profile for your lens – if you ping me via wikimail I can send it to you. Cheers, --El Grafo 20:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      ✓ Done Hi El Grafo, thanks for your helpful hints and the offered support. I've uploaded a new version with lens correction profile in use and I think it is much better now.--J. Lunau 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wonderful! I always enjoy seeing your pictures!--LuminitaM 18:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportPentru this mean You have my vote!--LuminitaM 21:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Cambridge railway station MMB 09 317340.jpg

Cambridge railway station MMB 09 317340.jpg

  • Nomination 317430 at Cambridge. Mattbuck 07:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The lighting is good, but it seems, that on that 3rd of May it has more than 30° Celsius. Its blurrish - even there, where there is no heat (train), its unsharp too. --Hubertl 16:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be that hot to generate a heat haze, especially as railways tend to reflect heat fairly well, and trains, even electric ones, put out quite a lot of heat themselves. I'll be honest I'm not 100% sold on this myself. Mattbuck 22:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I realized, that there will be a heat haze near the locomotive, but look to the very right side. There is no heat source at all. --Hubertl 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a sunny day, bright stones reflect heat well. It's certainly a heat haze. Mattbuck 20:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It is heat haze from the sun (no high temperatures required, it’s a matter of temperature gradients in the air. I shot a heat-hazed picture of a barn roof yesterday at 6 °C) blurring nearly everything of interest within the frame. Thus, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from me – except showing heat haze is the intention here but the file name does not suggest this. --Kreuzschnabel 09:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QIC. -- Smial 16:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I tend to agree with Hubertl. --El Grafo 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Residenset_Nyköping_February_2015.jpg

Residenset Nyköping February 2015.jpg

  • Nomination County Governor's Residence. --ArildV 13:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion the tower of the church is strangely bent. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably because of an extreme wide angle, I do not think it can be corrected.--ArildV 13:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you but I would like to discuss it.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid that such a distortion isn't be acceptable. Sorry. --C messier 18:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In fact that's what I thought --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Uro_boy.jpg

Uro boy.jpg

  • Nomination Boy from the Uro Islands, Peru. -- Christopher Crouzet 12:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice portrait and composition, sharp face - QI for me; just a question: What about personality rights warning for this boy? -- Achim Raschka 14:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose due to overexposure on the jumper, I'd also say the image seems a bit blue. --Mattbuck 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice scene but overexposed --Kreuzschnabel 07:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image and suitable exposure, otherwise his face would be too dark --Shansov.net 14:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IBTD. In a quality image, contrast should be dealt with skilfully instead of overexposing most of the pic IMHO. There are several ways of brightening a shady face. --Kreuzschnabel 09:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image and propper exposure--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 05:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GQ for me. --Palauenc05 17:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Eleventh_station_of_the_cross_in_Laghel_Arco.jpg

Eleventh station of the cross in Laghel Arco.jpg

  • Nomination The eleventh station of the Way of the Cross in Laghel Arco - Jesus is nailed to the cross‎.‎ --Moroder 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The actual shrine being depicted so small, I think you wanted to show the surroundings and steep road as well. Composition does not work for me though, and the lighting is poor since most of the frame is in shadow while the cloud on the top left is blown. Framing suggestion added, maybe you can re-take this in better light. I’d suggest to use a longer focal length from wider distance to obtain a denser composition. As yet it’s a weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from me. --Kreuzschnabel 09:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. I believe the crop is the best to see the environment as with all other stations. The sky is technically not overblown even if the clouds are not structured. I can't take it from a wider distance since I dont have a fliying tripod ;-) I'd like to hear the opinion of others. --Moroder 14:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this crop gives me a good impression of the ambience.--Hubertl 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Giraffe 09723.JPG

Giraffe 09723.JPG

  • Nomination Giraffa camelopardalis - Mysore Zoo --Vengolis 14:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no good crop ..--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would like to discuss it, because its not a crop. its the füll picture, probably the photographer wanted it like this. --Hubertl 02:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • still Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The author decided to take just a part of the animal into the frame. I see nothing wrong with that. It’s sharp and well-lit. Still the roof in the background (behind the head) indicates a CCW tilt, I won’t believe that structure is really this slanted. Will support as soon as this issue has been fixed. --Kreuzschnabel 08:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Not done therefore Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for tilt --Kreuzschnabel 09:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Bombardier_Eurotram_n°1003_CTS_Alt_Winmärik_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

Bombardier Eurotram n°1003 CTS Alt Winmärik - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Strasbourg tram line F --Billy69150 11:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion see my note the image is leaning on right--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done Thanks ! --Billy69150 17:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    Is the sky overexposed? Mattbuck 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC) No, it's not overexposed --Billy69150 12:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, just too bright for me. Mattbuck 22:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But it is not too bright for me. I like it more than other images which are much to dark. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 00:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 12:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some reviewers refuse to accept that the Sky is the brightest part of a picture at least during the day and that clouds are white. What should we do? --Moroder 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Different planet? --Hubertl 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   )

File:2014-07-02 Bonn International School, Bonn-Plittersdorf IMG 2127.jpg

2014-07-02 Bonn International School, Bonn-Plittersdorf IMG 2127.jpg

  • Nomination Bonn International School, Bonn, Germany (by Hasenläufer)--Leit 11:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image looks tilted. It should be possible to correct that? --Martin Kraft 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info It's good practice in QIC to give the author the possibility to correct his image before sending it to consensual review. Sending immediately to CR is not covered by QIC rules. --Cccefalon 15:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed it looks a little bit tilted but I think it's really not a big deal on that picture. --TwoWings 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's tilted, not much but visible and there is enough space to fix it. After fixing it I would support it. -- DerFussi 07:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 18:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

File:London MMB »065 River Thames.jpg

London MMB »065 River Thames.jpg

  • Nomination River Thames. Mattbuck 21:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. River Thames? The background is blurrisch, only on part is a kind of acceptable sharp. --Hubertl 10:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Other opinions? --Mattbuck 22:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes, I see nothing blurred nor unsharp, just a little acceptable noise --Christian Ferrer 20:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   )

File:Jason_Evans_WiR_at_Llyfrgell_Genedlaethol_National_Library_of_Wales_03.JPG

Jason Evans WiR at Llyfrgell Genedlaethol National Library of Wales 03.JPG

  • Nomination Dr Dafydd Tudur receiving National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. By User:Llywelyn2000 --Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The portrait is not perfectly sharp, however I think it can pass to QI after applying perspective correction for the background building. --Cccefalon 09:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I'm not sure that's necessary or even desirable. I think the perspective forms part of the composition.Mattbuck 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some CA and some color noise in the jacket, perhaps even moirée. I would like to see some more votes, so send to CR instead of decline. -- Smial 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I absolutely agree Mattbuck. Perspective correction neither necessary nor wanted. DerFussi 07:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?

File:Heuliez_GX_327_n°746_Réseau_Mistral_Mourillon_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

Heuliez GX 327 n°746 Réseau Mistral Mourillon - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Bus in Toulon --Billy69150 12:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 15:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, its tilted clockwise. Please repair. --Hubertl 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC) *
  • ✓ Done --Billy69150 21:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good Quality now.--Hubertl 07:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some colours seem quite dull to me, and I don't really like the contrast (white-blue sky vs darker sections). --TwoWings 15:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad light : disturbing shadow --Christian Ferrer 20:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support, but Billy69150, this needs a tighter crop at the top. Mattbuck 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Christian Ferrer --El Grafo 17:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This shadow does not seem me disturbing and I find the photo very nice. Kvardek du 19:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support, as Mattbuck - DerFussi 07:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? El Grafo 17:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Tabla del tiempo (día 8 tras la nominación)

lun 23 feb → mar 03 mar
mar 24 feb → mié 04 mar
mié 25 feb → jue 05 mar
jue 26 feb → vie 06 mar
vie 27 feb → sáb 07 mar
sáb 28 feb → dom 08 mar
dom 01 mar → lun 09 mar
lun 02 mar → mar 10 mar
mar 03 mar → mié 11 mar